Smartphones lead mobile sales, Android moves into no. 3 spot

Android has eclipsed iOS and is creeping up on RIM as smartphone sales …

Mobile handset sales continued their global growth last quarter thanks largely to the increased sales of smartphones. According to data from analytics firm Gartner, smartphone sales were up over 50 percent year-over-year for a total of 61.6 million units sold, with the top four OS vendors accounting for 91 percent of the worldwide smartphone OS market.

Handset sales in general grew by 13.8 percent during the second quarter of 2010 compared to 2009, with smartphones making up 19 percent of overall device sales. Gartner noted that new products from Apple, HTC, and Motorola helped boost the numbers, and predicted that the launches of updated operating systems would keep growth going throughout the rest of 2010.

The top four smartphone OSes were Symbian (41.2 percent), RIM (18.2 percent), Android (17.2 percent), and iOS (14.2 percent), with Android phones eclipsing iOS devices during the quarter and taking the number three spot away from Apple. This is not all that surprising, given the number of reports noting that Android phones have been selling at a greater clip than iPhones—Gartner attributes this to tight iPhone inventory prior to the iPhone 4 launch, as well as the difference in company attitudes when it comes to OS exclusivity.

"A nonexclusive strategy that produces products selling across many communication service providers (CSPs), and the backing of so many device manufacturers, which are bringing more attractive devices to market at several different price points, were among the factors that yielded its growth this quarter," Gartner analyst Carolina Milanesi said of Android's impressive growth numbers.

Gartner added that RIM's BlackBerry OS 6.0 and new devices like the Torch would help the company maintain its position during the third quarter, but that those factors would do more to keep existing BlackBerry users than attract new ones. Like Nielsen's data from last week, Gartner's numbers showed that Android was closing in on RIM, with only one percentage point of market share separating them.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

82 Reader Comments

This report also excludes the iPhone 4 which followed the 2nd quarter. It will be interesting to see how the relative market shares have changed since then, if at all.

If one considers that rumours of the imminent release of the iPhone 4 (fueled in part by the Engadget "expose") may have influenced the decrease in demand of the then available iPhone 3GS, in anticipation of the new model, then it is conceivable that iPhone 4 sales may have brought Apple back into an aggressive lead with regards to Android devices.

DZ, I'm not sure if the release of the iPhone 4 will help or not. Yeah, they sold 1.7 million (the number they sold at launch). If you take that plus the same number of sales from the second quarter (61.6M x .142 = 8,747,200) it would still only give them about 10.5M, and if Android only has a 1% increase, it would give them 10.7M, and they would still be up. But, that's only if the Android increase is 1%, which I think is a very low estimate, as they had a 3% increase last quarter. And, couple with that all of the negative press the iPhone 4 got after launch, and I'm sure the initial surge probably died down some.

But, anything is possible, so my assumptions above could be completely baseless. Not that it really even matters that much, though, either. The closer the competition, the better the product, and that's a "win" in the consumer's favor. Let's all hope that neither wins out completely so that it will continue improving!

DZ, maybe. But there are a ton of new Android devices that will be sold this quarter (Droid X, Droid 2, Epic 4G, Galaxy, Streak, Flipout, and probably a dozen others). There's no going back. As the article says, Apple picked its strategy, and that will be to give up its lead in the US to fall back to a high-profit, lower relative volume play (same as Mac is to PC).

Even if the iPhone 4 wasn't included, Android phones are still selling at a monthly rate faster than the iPhone. This is even before the Droid X, Droid 2, and Samsung phones were included in the mix. Android's only looking up from here.

It also doesn't consider all the small-time markets (that all add up to be substantial) like US Cellular or Cincinnati Bell that will soon have an Android device.

Apple had a good run and helped changed the market and people's attitudes towards phones, but their exclusivity, single hardware instance each year, and locked down OS with scant improvements are going to hurt them in the long run, at least market-share wise.

If one considers that rumours of the imminent release of the iPhone 4 (fueled in part by the Engadget "expose") may have influenced the decrease in demand of the then available iPhone 3GS, in anticipation of the new model, then it is conceivable that iPhone 4 sales may have brought Apple back into an aggressive lead with regards to Android devices.

Unlikely. Look, Android will win in terms of marketshare sooner or later, to the surprise of no one. So let's just accept it's happened already, end this boring pissing contest and move to the far more interesting one: profitshare.

This report also excludes the iPhone 4 which followed the 2nd quarter. It will be interesting to see how the relative market shares have changed since then, if at all.

If one considers that rumours of the imminent release of the iPhone 4 (fueled in part by the Engadget "expose") may have influenced the decrease in demand of the then available iPhone 3GS, in anticipation of the new model, then it is conceivable that iPhone 4 sales may have brought Apple back into an aggressive lead with regards to Android devices.

-dZ.

Reality Distortion Field in full effect.

With or without iPhone 4 numbers Android has been going out the door at a faster clip. iPhone 4 doesn't matter.

The article doesn't do this, but let's not confuse the OS with the phone. iOS is the iphone when talking about mobile sales, but the iphone shouldn't be compared to "Android" when talking about volume. I don't know, but I'm curious if any of the individual Android phone's sales volume is comparable to the iphone.

Regarding what the article does discuss...OS volume. Android may have had a better second quarter, but they were running up against iOS at the end of a product cycle (ie Apples worst quarter of the year.) Anyone that's remotely plugged-in would know that Apple was launching a new phone in Q3. Android will ultimately outsell iOS in mobile volume, but that doesn't mean a whole lot when you're comparing the best of the best for each OS. Even though there are 3 new Android phones released a week, I don't know that Android will outsell iOS in Q3 and Q4.

I don't think it's any surprise that Android as an operating system would eventually surpass iOS or BlackBerry OS. Android is available on a multitude of devices from a multitude of carries. While BlackBerry OS is available on a multitude of carriers and in a larger array of devices than iOS, it's still a RIM-only game in terms of handset manufacturers. And iOS is obviously one carrier, one manufacturer, 1-2 devices.

That doesn't necessarily mean that iOS devices are inferior, it just means that Android devices come in an exponentially larger variety of flavors at a variety of price points. Likewise, it doesn't necessarily mean that iOS devices are inherently superior, just that Apple has picked a strategy for their mobile offering: One manufacturer, one carrier...maybe two eventually (in the U.S. at least), etc.

As someone else mentioned, the Android vs. iOS comparison is shaping up to be very similar to the Windows vs. MacOS landscape. Apple will make money on iOS devices and continue to have a loyal customer base, but eventually the commoditization of Android devices will make it a much more widely-spread operating system for smart phones.

That's all just my opinion, of course. I could be wrong, it happens all the time.

If one considers that rumours of the imminent release of the iPhone 4 (fueled in part by the Engadget "expose") may have influenced the decrease in demand of the then available iPhone 3GS, in anticipation of the new model, then it is conceivable that iPhone 4 sales may have brought Apple back into an aggressive lead with regards to Android devices.

Unlikely. Look, Android will win in terms of marketshare sooner or later, to the surprise of no one. So let's just accept it's happened already, end this boring pissing contest and move to the far more interesting one: profitshare.

++. Good God, two models vs a gazillion? Android would be a colossal failure if it *couldn't* eventually spank the current iPhone in sales number.

Profit share is a very interesting question. Will the Android assault push down ASPs for the entire smartphone market or will it only cannibalize? The vendors are updating at an insane rate; is that sustainable?

And Asia and Africa, IIRC. Nokia has just never pushed much into North America, for some reason.

In India, alone, Nokia has something like 65%+ market share.

As for why Nokia smartphones never took off in the States, until very recently Nokia flatly refused, ala Apple, to have their smartphones modified by the carriers. The carriers, in return, basically said "fuck you". Nobody in the US buys a phone w/o a carrier subsidy (~3% of the USA market, last I heard). Nokia still has a large chunk of the feature/dumb-phone market.

DZ-Jay wrote:

This report also excludes the iPhone 4 which followed the 2nd quarter. It will be interesting to see how the relative market shares have changed since then, if at all.

First sentence of the first post. You guys don't disappoint. It's the Ars equivalent of First Post on ye olde Slashdot.

Can you really count "Android" as one block? What about those who are still carrier locked to 1.5 and 1.6? Those who are getting 2.2, and those who can't?

There are two variants of iOS right now - 3.2.2 and 4.0.2. There are more variants of Android and more hardware iterations than there are fanboys in a flamewar. It's clear that the apps are suffering because of Google's disjointed, carrier-submissive approach to software - and that means that customers are suffering in turn. A few cycles on the market with Android owners seeing most iPhone owners get upgrades, while their carrier locks them out of features will soon sour the masses on the 'droid.

Which is sad, because it's a brilliant platform that deserves to do well. The lesson here is that you can't trust the carriers.

The article doesn't do this, but let's not confuse the OS with the phone. iOS is the iphone when talking about mobile sales, but the iphone shouldn't be compared to "Android" when talking about volume. I don't know, but I'm curious if any of the individual Android phone's sales volume is comparable to the iphone.

Regarding what the article does discuss...OS volume. Android may have had a better second quarter, but they were running up against iOS at the end of a product cycle (ie Apples worst quarter of the year.) Anyone that's remotely plugged-in would know that Apple was launching a new phone in Q3. Android will ultimately outsell iOS in mobile volume, but that doesn't mean a whole lot when you're comparing the best of the best for each OS. Even though there are 3 new Android phones released a week, I don't know that Android will outsell iOS in Q3 and Q4.

Oh...and BB? blah!

Ok, a couple points here: The iPhone 4 is probably the best selling cell phone to date. That's pretty much not up to discussion. The best selling computer of all time is probably some iMac or Macbook. However, best selling individual instance versus best selling TYPE, Android Phones have supassed the various iPhones, and the success of any particular model of iMac or Macbook does not negate the vast advantage in sheer numbers of Dells, Compaqs, HPs, Acers, Sony Vaios, etc., over the various Apple offerings. Just as the very large (but dispersed in exact model match) PC infrastructure supports a more vibrant software development environment than Apple's closed, proprietary infrastructure, the Android environment will ultimately result in more software (of admittedly both higher and lower quality) overall for the smartphones than Apple's environment will. Which will result eventually in Android powering many more cell phones than iOS. That said, there's no reason to assume that Symbian is going to lose out to Android, however. Blackberry OS is not gaining in market share (a bad sign in the long run) but isn't going to go away either. So we'll end up with a smartphone stratification eventually... Blackberry OS, Android, iOS and probably Symbian ala the way we currently have Windows, Linux, and OSX. And Apple is probably more than happy with that. Their market strategy was always to develop a cachet that allowed them to charge a premium for both the phone and any software. They have developed that. If they had wanted to be the biggest OS out there, they made a huge mistake right at the beginning, when they went exclusive with AT&T.... but doing so ensured that they would always be able to charge a premium for the iPhone.

I'm happy with my DroidX (for the most part... the not being able to use 3G while on the phone is a pain!), and have no desire to have an iPhone... but that's not saying there isn't a place for iPhones in the mix, and hopefully Apple will introduce a few new (good) wrinkles to future iPhones that will get copied into Android. But I don't think Apple ever wanted to be the number 1 smartphone company.... just the highest per unit profit.

The old Motorola RAZR (and variants) at one time, alone, accounted for ~16% of _all_ cell phones sold in the Americas... combined. Some of the old Nokia candybar phones have sold (and continue to sell) in the literal tens (if not hundreds) of millions.

Nokia, for instance, ships more phones in a single quarter than entire lifetime's supply of Nintendo DSs, year in, year out. Nokia is larger than their next three competitors combined.

Apple has had a weird market share trip the last couple years, but over time they should settle into their comfortable position selling well designed, fashionable products to people who are willing to pay a little more for those products. They will continue to be a "niche" player, but rake in a lot of profit. As they have since the eighties with Mac products. Much hand wringing will occur.

From a software perspective, yes, yes you can. Just like Windows, Linux, etc.

You've made a statement, but it's incorrect. So let's go with no for now.

Quote:

Quote:

What about those who are still carrier locked to 1.5 and 1.6?

None of those should be left as new at this point. Anything in the channel is effectively NOS at this point.

None of those SHOULD be left at this point, but there are. That, of course, is the problem. I'm not sure if your ignorance on this matter is willful or not. Google Rogers and HTC and you'll see there are no fewer than four handsets currently being sold on their site that are carrier locked to pre-2.0 Android operating systems.

Quote:

Quote:

Those who are getting 2.2, and those who can't?

No different than Windows or iOS.

Yes, as a matter of fact it is, given the youth of the platform, and the sheer degree of fragmentation across hardware and software variants.

Quote:

Quote:

There are two variants of iOS right now - 3.2.2 and 4.0.2. There are more variants of Android and more hardware iterations than there are fanboys in a flamewar.

Just like Windows. We all know how well that failed as an OS with it's trifling market share...

There's absolutely no comparison to be made to Windows here, and you're embarrassing yourself by suggesting one.

The old Motorola RAZR (and variants) at one time, alone, accounted for ~16% of _all_ cell phones sold in the Americas... combined. Some of the old Nokia candybar phones have sold (and continue to sell) in the literal tens (if not hundreds) of millions.

Nokia, for instance, ships more phones in a single quarter than entire lifetime's supply of Nintendo DSs, year in, year out. Nokia is larger than their next three competitors combined.

Those damned RAZR's are still in use, and were bringing more then enough money in to make them viable to develop games for even considering how much they suck (185kb size limit is brutal)

I can't name a single Symbian phone and I can't remember seeing one at a store, and yet they have by far the biggest share. Is it all in Europe?

And Asia and Africa, IIRC. Nokia has just never pushed much into North America, for some reason.

I was going to stick my foot in my mouth by saying Symbian isn't big in Japan, but Symbian isn't just on Nokia hardware. Apparently Symbian does OK in Japan, but I wonder if the popular flip phones they've got these days count as smart phones or feature phones?

There are two variants of iOS right now - 3.2.2 and 4.0.2. There are more variants of Android and more hardware iterations than there are fanboys in a flamewar.

Just like Windows. We all know how well that failed as an OS with it's trifling market share...

There's absolutely no comparison to be made to Windows here, and you're embarrassing yourself by suggesting one.

Comparisons can be made without everything being identical. In this case, there's a rather significant similarity: Google has made a deal that allows Android to be put on just about any hardware, like Microsoft did with Windows. The result is that, even though there won't be one ubiquitous model or even set of models that defines Android, the operating system will be used by a larger share of consumers. In the end it may result in being the "default" operating system, much like Windows is, for most people and businesses.

In both cases, Apple wanted to control the entire experience, from hardware to software. In both cases, the rival OS left hardware design to third parties. The result is more options, picking up more of the customers who want those options. And likely, in both cases, the OS that isn't tied to vendor owned hardware will probably dominate, but there will be a small faction who prefer the consistent, proprietary experience.

Some major differences:

Android phones are not really any cheaper than similar iPhones. Clearly, Apple is not charging as big a premium on phone hardware as they do on computer hardware.Android is "open source" and "free" where windows was not. Even so, the OS is still controlled by one vendor.

Of course this comparison is ignoring RIM, Symbian, Microsoft, and Palm, and their respective marketshares before Apple or Android came on the scene. But then, none of them really offer similar experiences to Android/Apple, due to lack of "apps". In the "app driven smartphone" sector, really Apple started the market, and Android followed...similar to the "gui driven computers" sector, with MacOS and Windows.

But I don't think Apple ever wanted to be the number 1 smartphone company.... just the highest per unit profit.

Every single Android fan should remember this when they open their mouths to brag about their marketshare. Ballmer has a ton of marketshare too. But Apple has the

Are you suggesting that Apple has higher revenue, operating income, or profit than Microsoft? Because none of those are true.

No, I'm suggesting they are a far more efficient money maker than MS. Scale them to MS's size, and they'd blow the company so far away it would effectively cease to exist. Besides, Apple makes most of its money...wait for it:

With products that are less than 5 years old.

MS is running on the inertia of a platform that is very, very old. They can't invent or buy their way into anything half as profitable as Windows and Office. Xbox live is popular, but the Wii stole their lunch and kissed their sister and they just sat there and watched. The Wii!

The old Motorola RAZR (and variants) at one time, alone, accounted for ~16% of _all_ cell phones sold in the Americas... combined. Some of the old Nokia candybar phones have sold (and continue to sell) in the literal tens (if not hundreds) of millions.

Nokia, for instance, ships more phones in a single quarter than entire lifetime's supply of Nintendo DSs, year in, year out. Nokia is larger than their next three competitors combined.

BZZZT.... oh, so sorry! As you yourself say "AND VARIANTS". For a SINGLE model cellsmartphone, the current iPhone4 is the all time best seller. As soon as you get the "and variants" you miss the entire point.

Edit: The point is about SMARTPHONES, not cell phones or feature phones...

But I don't think Apple ever wanted to be the number 1 smartphone company.... just the highest per unit profit.

Every single Android fan should remember this when they open their mouths to brag about their marketshare. Ballmer has a ton of marketshare too. But Apple has the

Are you suggesting that Apple has higher revenue, operating income, or profit than Microsoft? Because none of those are true.

No, I'm suggesting they are a far more efficient money maker than MS. Scale them to MS's size, and they'd blow the company so far away it would effectively cease to exist. Besides, Apple makes most of its money...wait for it:

With products that are less than 5 years old.

MS is running on the inertia of a platform that is very, very old. They can't invent or buy their way into anything half as profitable as Windows and Office. Xbox live is popular, but the Wii stole their lunch and kissed their sister and they just sat there and watched. The Wii!

But I don't think Apple ever wanted to be the number 1 smartphone company.... just the highest per unit profit.

Every single Android fan should remember this when they open their mouths to brag about their marketshare. Ballmer has a ton of marketshare too. But Apple has the

Are you suggesting that Apple has higher revenue, operating income, or profit than Microsoft? Because none of those are true.

No, I'm suggesting they are a far more efficient money maker than MS. Scale them to MS's size, and they'd blow the company so far away it would effectively cease to exist. Besides, Apple makes most of its money...wait for it:

With products that are less than 5 years old.

MS is running on the inertia of a platform that is very, very old. They can't invent or buy their way into anything half as profitable as Windows and Office. Xbox live is popular, but the Wii stole their lunch and kissed their sister and they just sat there and watched. The Wii!